Speaker 1: Welcome once again to another exciting episode of The Oath
Speaker 1: and the Office, inspired by Odysseus. I'm John Fiegele saying,
Speaker 1: joined by the great Professor and the author of The
Speaker 1: Oath in the Office, Corey Britschneider. Corey, good to see
Speaker 1: you again, my highly rated friend.
Speaker 2: Thanks so much, and what a pleasure to do this
Speaker 2: with you. I did actually see the Odyssey, so we
Speaker 2: maybe have to sneak some of that in there.
Speaker 1: I saw an IMAX last night in Englewood.
Speaker 3: Baby.
Speaker 2: Oh, I didn't get imax.
Speaker 1: Oh, Oh, you gotta go see it again. Now, you
Speaker 1: gotta go. That's why they make movies to see that
Speaker 1: in imax.
Speaker 2: Oh. We have an amazing show, you know, our own
Speaker 2: odyssey against Donald Trump, and we'll talk about the details
Speaker 2: what's happening. And then also I just want a preview.
Speaker 2: I pre recorded a conversation with Sky Perryman, who is
Speaker 2: the CEO of Democracy Forward, and like the ACLU, they
Speaker 2: are really at the forefront of the fight to save
Speaker 2: our democracy. And we talk about, for instance, their work
Speaker 2: in actually succeeding in stopping this slush fund to fund
Speaker 2: Donald Trump's allies and to go after his opponents they
Speaker 2: were instrumental too and stopping this phony deal with the Irs.
Speaker 2: And we talk about, you know, the role of citizens
Speaker 2: and fighting back and how we can actually do it.
Speaker 2: So we're going to talk as always about the threats
Speaker 2: to democracy that we're facing now, this ridiculous speech that
Speaker 2: Donald Trump gave that was a sort of speaking threat
Speaker 2: to democracy, and then also how we fight back.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm a big fan of Skyperry Ben. She's done
Speaker 1: my Serious ExM show many times, so I can't wait
Speaker 1: for that. And I want to thank you, professor, for
Speaker 1: being so flexible now that my Serious XM show has
Speaker 1: moved back to the day times, which is where I
Speaker 1: was when I first met you. But thank you for
Speaker 1: those six plus years you did hard time with us
Speaker 1: in late night. It's been a pleasure to talk about
Speaker 1: this out with you in the daylight again. And I
Speaker 1: have to begin by asking you about Donald Trump's hateful, mendacious,
Speaker 1: and not entirely charismatic primetime address last week. I'm sure
Speaker 1: you saw it, the state of denial address about the
Speaker 1: desperate crisis of election integrity in America, but only when
Speaker 1: he's in charge. I don't know if you caught that,
Speaker 1: but it's never a problem. Our elections seemed to be
Speaker 1: fine if it's Barack Obama or Joe Biden in charge.
Speaker 1: But if Donald Trump's president and it's twenty twenty or
Speaker 1: twenty twenty six, my god, it's so rife with corruption.
Speaker 1: I guess he's saying democracy only breaks when Trump's holding
Speaker 1: the keys, Corey. But he did this to revisit his
Speaker 1: old grievances about the twenty twenty election while presenting newly
Speaker 1: declassified documents that would prove that somehow China rigged it,
Speaker 1: And they did the exact opposite. They actually showed that
Speaker 1: Russia was colluding to try to overturn an election. But
Speaker 1: I mean, where to begin From a constitutional perspective, Corey,
Speaker 1: how unusual is it for a sitting president to use
Speaker 1: the the institutional authority of the presidency to convene broadcast
Speaker 1: networks and do a primetime address on our taxpayer funded
Speaker 1: airwaves to relitigate a past election. We know why he's
Speaker 1: really doing it, But we've never seen anything like this
Speaker 1: theatrically in history, have we?
Speaker 2: Yeah? You know, I'm usually looking for parallels and finding them,
Speaker 2: and threats to democracy and things like shutting down the
Speaker 2: opposition when it comes to free speech. We certainly have
Speaker 2: seen that from past presidents, from John Adams and Wilson,
Speaker 2: But have we ever seen a president use a national
Speaker 2: broadcast to undermine confidence in the electoral system itself, at
Speaker 2: least again, as you said, when it goes against him.
Speaker 2: But yet still, and this is one of the bizarre
Speaker 2: things about the speech, have confidence when it supports him.
Speaker 2: I mean, right, but you know, the just the bizarreness
Speaker 2: of all this, I have to say, let me start
Speaker 2: with the idea of the deep state. I mean, the
Speaker 2: deep state actually goes back to skepticism about the CIA
Speaker 2: and a lot of the secrecy that has existed in
Speaker 2: the American presidency, especially in the twentieth century, external skeptics
Speaker 2: coming in and saying, hey, there's something weird going on here.
Speaker 2: Let's see behind the veil. What's so strange about this
Speaker 2: is the rhetoric of the deep state, of people undermining
Speaker 2: our elections from within or minimizing you know, foreign threats,
Speaker 2: Like yeah, from within.
Speaker 1: His own people, in his own He's literally talking about
Speaker 1: the people he hired bringing him his daily briefings, that
Speaker 1: it left stuff out and that like literally he wasn't
Speaker 1: even trying. I expect much more from the evil mind
Speaker 1: of Stephen Miller than this speech provise Cory, because I
Speaker 1: mean the smoking gun came unloaded, it was all stuff
Speaker 1: like that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, let me cite the unitary executive theories.
Speaker 2: He has exerted enormous control now over the civil service,
Speaker 2: and yet at the same time that he claims, well,
Speaker 2: I have control over all of this, and is exerting
Speaker 2: control still. He claims there's a secret cabal within the
Speaker 2: government going after him. No, it's you. You are the cabal.
Speaker 2: And I think what's really going on is you know,
Speaker 2: it's revealing of what the strategy is here. Yeah, frame
Speaker 2: election interference. Well, who's doing the interference. It is Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: He is trying to subvert votes, to undermine confidence in elections,
Speaker 2: to get legislation thankfully that I think won't be passed past.
Speaker 2: And you know, there's so much going on behind the curtain.
Speaker 2: One of the things, just to preview the discussion that
Speaker 2: I recorded earlier with Sky Perryman that will hear later,
Speaker 2: is one of the things that's great about democracy forward
Speaker 2: is trying to pierce that veil of secrecy, and what
Speaker 2: we see from Trump what he's already told us makes
Speaker 2: us extremely suspicious of what's going on behind the scenes.
Speaker 2: And you know what, those are documents, And thankfully, because
Speaker 2: of the Foil Law and other ways of getting transparent access,
Speaker 2: we consue to get access. So it's one of the
Speaker 2: things we talk about.
Speaker 1: Well, here's the thing. I mean, I guess declassified means stuff.
Speaker 1: I really wish it actually happened, because there was nothing
Speaker 1: there that he said was there. China did not manipulate
Speaker 1: a single vote. He keeps on trying to overturn an
Speaker 1: election that's like old enough to be in kindergarten, now,
Speaker 1: you know. And it's easy and tempting to laugh at this,
Speaker 1: but there is method to this batshit, as you say, professor,
Speaker 1: And one of the central themes of the speech was
Speaker 1: that Americans should doubt the integrity of previous elections, while
Speaker 1: also urging Congress to pass sweeping new election legislation that
Speaker 1: we don't actually need. There has never been a problem
Speaker 1: with voter impersonation in this country. We don't need voter
Speaker 1: ID laws. They solve no existing problems. But we know
Speaker 1: what the Save Act is all about. The Save Act
Speaker 1: is all about the fact that women have been voting
Speaker 1: democratics since nineteen ninety two consistently, and that's got to stop.
Speaker 1: And they think they found a way to reduce those
Speaker 1: numbers for at least one or two elections. So is
Speaker 1: there a constitution difference between advocating election reforms and using
Speaker 1: presidential authority to undermine confidence and elections without ever giving
Speaker 1: any evidence that voting systems or vote counts were actually compromised. Again,
Speaker 1: he brought no evidence to justify these laws that are
Speaker 1: designed for one thing, to make it harder for citizens
Speaker 1: to exercise the right to vote.
Speaker 2: That's right. Well, the speech was about was a smattering
Speaker 2: of phrases, deep state, China all, you know, trying to
Speaker 2: just prime these ideas. America has all these enemies that are.
Speaker 1: Resulting in master greatest hits.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's greatest hits.
Speaker 1: And then with trans children playing sports or hacking our
Speaker 1: elections everything.
Speaker 2: Wait, when you look at you know, the evidence of
Speaker 2: voter fraud, even the Heritage's database of supposed voting instances
Speaker 2: of voter fraud, you know you're talking about in the hundreds. Now,
Speaker 2: this isn't even confirming their cases. Nothing that would ever
Speaker 2: approximate making a difference in really any election that we've
Speaker 2: been talking about, So you know there is no evidence
Speaker 2: for this. Now you asked about, you know, the constitutional dangers,
Speaker 2: but also the protections. Let me first say just to
Speaker 2: reassure people what the protections are, and they are vast
Speaker 2: our elections. Thankfully, it used to be that scholars and
Speaker 2: politicians debated about whether or not we should have one
Speaker 2: national system of elections to better protect it. That debate,
Speaker 2: I think has been answered by Donald Trump, which is
Speaker 2: a great thing that elections are controlled by local and
Speaker 2: state government because he keeps him from doing what he
Speaker 2: surely would do if there was national control or control
Speaker 2: by the president or thankfully we haven't done this, but
Speaker 2: if the Congress would have delegated the power to the president,
Speaker 2: if any of that would have happened, he would have
Speaker 2: swooped in and assuming that it stood court challenges, if
Speaker 2: that was the system national elections, and he would have
Speaker 2: stolen all the elections going forward. It would have been
Speaker 2: a clear path to a clean coup. Now, the fact
Speaker 2: that the elections are local keeps him from being able
Speaker 2: to enact his will, so he's got to figure out
Speaker 2: ways of shaving off votes, and the same act is
Speaker 2: one attempt to do that, and we talked to Stacy
Speaker 2: Abrams an amazing discussion. I urge listeners to go back
Speaker 2: to that. You know, he's figured out every state in
Speaker 2: locality requires some form of identification. But what Trump has
Speaker 2: done is figured out the specific forms of identifications like
Speaker 2: passports that people don't have right him, don't have so
Speaker 2: that's all that.
Speaker 1: That's yeah, and who doesn't have driver's licenses, College students,
Speaker 1: especially college students in cities, and seniors and you know,
Speaker 1: I mean, who's not going to have a photo IDA
Speaker 1: people who are new citizens. I mean, it's just it's
Speaker 1: all done to shave a little here, shave a little there.
Speaker 1: This was a spray of sloppy lies spread by an
Speaker 1: unpopular politician who was impeached twice for trying to cheat
Speaker 1: in the twenty twenty election. Let's not for he was
Speaker 1: impeached twice for trying to cheat in the same election
Speaker 1: that he was talking about in a primetime speech six
Speaker 1: years later, and he's been cheating in the twenty twenty
Speaker 1: six election, Professor since early twenty twenty five, when he
Speaker 1: demanded Texas have a mid decade Jerry Mander to dilute
Speaker 1: the non white vote. So what was amazing to me
Speaker 1: was the speech had zero mentions of Russian interference in
Speaker 1: American elections. He didn't talk about in the speech, but
Speaker 1: in the documents he released, it confirmed that the Russian
Speaker 1: government was spreading claims that Joe Biden was engaged in
Speaker 1: a criminal activity with Barisma with his son. Like they
Speaker 1: released the documents and I quote, Russia planned those narratives
Speaker 1: with US officials and planned a high profile corruption scandal
Speaker 1: at the peak of the twenty twenty US presidential campaign.
Speaker 1: This is what he actually released, Corey, to prove the
Speaker 1: twenty twenty election was rigged against him, and it actually
Speaker 1: shows that no, Russia was still interfering in our elections
Speaker 1: to hurt Joe Biden in twenty twenty. I mean, where
Speaker 1: does this fit Historically We've never seen a president repeatedly
Speaker 1: question the legitimacy of elections after courts and election officials
Speaker 1: and Intel Agency have rejected those claims. I mean, is
Speaker 1: it just desperate fumbling, Corey? Do I need to be
Speaker 1: scared of this because the states do control the elections
Speaker 1: and all of this is just lies to try to
Speaker 1: get a population worried about gas prices to care a
Speaker 1: lot about it election six years ago, so they can
Speaker 1: cheat in one in a few months.
Speaker 2: Well, I think we do have to be concerned, and
Speaker 2: that's why we have to try to figure out, you know,
Speaker 2: what is going on behind the scenes, because this speech
Speaker 2: gives us not more than suspicion, it gives us evidence
Speaker 2: that he is going to try to cheat in this election.
Speaker 2: And his obsession about proving that somehow there is election
Speaker 2: interference against him, you know, is all part of building
Speaker 2: this case to cheat in the next election. I think
Speaker 2: it goes to a kind of psychology which is actually
Speaker 2: kind of Nixonian broadly, which is everybody's doing it, everybody's cheating,
Speaker 2: so I can cheat too. And how does he show
Speaker 2: that he shows that there are forces lined up against
Speaker 2: him supposedly, Well, he isn't actually shown. Point about barisma.
Speaker 2: You know, let's remember that in the first impeachment of
Speaker 2: Trump for the quid pro quo where he was really
Speaker 2: threatening Zelensky in order to get information on his opponent.
Speaker 2: That was the information that he was seeking Hunter Biden
Speaker 2: and Joe Biden supposed involvement with Ukrainian company, and one
Speaker 2: the that we've never gotten away with and it's a
Speaker 2: president who was obsessed with his supposed opponent who's no
Speaker 2: longer president, Joe Biden, and all with an aim of
Speaker 2: one thing, which is just like that original scheme in
Speaker 2: the first impeachment, getting information that I could use on
Speaker 2: my opponents send an election, to cheat, to manipulate the vote.
Speaker 2: And that's what this said was really exhibit A in
Speaker 2: his attempted coup to destroy our democracy.
Speaker 1: That's what he got impieced for with Ukraine. All right,
Speaker 1: really quick, because I know we have to move on.
Speaker 1: There's a lot to cover. But during the speech, Trump
Speaker 1: criticized CNN and ABC and NBC for declining to air
Speaker 1: his lies live on their networks, and he suggested their
Speaker 1: broadcast licenses should be revoked because the only thing these
Speaker 1: people hate more than the New Testament is the Bill
Speaker 1: of Rights. So, Corey, from a First Amendment standpoint, obviously,
Speaker 1: the government can't punish newspapers or TV stations because it
Speaker 1: dislikes editorial decisions. Can you just explain why editorial discretion
Speaker 1: itself is constitutionally protected speech.
Speaker 2: Well, you know, we talked last week with the senator
Speaker 2: from Oregon, Senator Wyden about his jaw Boning Act, and
Speaker 2: we talked to death about this, and I'm so grateful
Speaker 2: actually to listeners who keep writing to me, and a
Speaker 2: lot of people had never heard this term jaw boning,
Speaker 2: but it is so important for the moment because sometimes
Speaker 2: you know, in the Sedition Act, which we've talked about extensively,
Speaker 2: John Adams signed law that said basically, criticize the president,
Speaker 2: you go to prison. The nice thing about that law is, Okay,
Speaker 2: obviously that's a shutdown of free speech. And yeah, back
Speaker 2: looking back on it, we can see that what about
Speaker 2: when the president uses the FCC in order to pressure
Speaker 2: private companies to make their own decisions. I'm giving this
Speaker 2: the most sympathetic, overly sympathetic way of describing.
Speaker 1: It, to shut it query.
Speaker 2: Maybe that's not the government shutting down your free speech,
Speaker 2: and so it's not relevant to the First Amendment, except
Speaker 2: that obviously that's not what's going on the government pretending
Speaker 2: that private companies are making their own decisions, but really
Speaker 2: are pressuring forcing them to do so. So that's a problem.
Speaker 1: By the way, thank you for reminding everybody that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump attacked capitalism. I'll be sure to remind the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party to not use that at all in their campaigns
Speaker 1: this year. You know, please Democrats don't use that and
Speaker 1: it's too effective. Please don't go out as hypocrisy Democrats.
Speaker 2: You know, the way he's gotten away with it is
Speaker 2: that he pretends somehow that these are private decisions. CBS,
Speaker 2: of course, did show the speech, thankfully, ABC and NBC
Speaker 2: did not. Even though they are going to have their
Speaker 2: licenses threatened. They resisted in the face of it. It's
Speaker 2: still a First Amendment violation. I hope that those corporations
Speaker 2: do sue because you cannot, through pressure, threaten the licenses
Speaker 2: and try to basically shut down the decision making of
Speaker 2: private companies. And yes, the Democratic Party better be emphasizing.
Speaker 2: I thought cn EN did a nice job. They printed
Speaker 2: the speech, but with panditation, that's a good way to
Speaker 2: do it. You can cover the speech. We're covering it
Speaker 2: right now, exactly, letting it air on its own.
Speaker 1: Well, that was the question I had for you, and
Speaker 1: then we'll get off this topic. But it doesn't seem
Speaker 1: too tough to balance these two competing journalistic obligations. Right
Speaker 1: on the one hand, you have to inform the public
Speaker 1: because it's a speech, and you got to tell them
Speaker 1: what the president said, but you also have to avoid
Speaker 1: amplifying demonstrably false claims, which is the same reason why
Speaker 1: if you're hosting a debate and Donald Trump is there,
Speaker 1: you really want to call out his lives. But that's
Speaker 1: another show. So I mean, that seems to be where
Speaker 1: it's at. Corey, I agree with you. I think that
Speaker 1: they pulled it off by actually having fact checking for
Speaker 1: a speech, and I support keeping that and when there's
Speaker 1: a democratic president, I hope they keep it too. I
Speaker 1: would love to see these broadcast networks have live fact
Speaker 1: checking in the moment to scare these politicians into telling
Speaker 1: the truth.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I think that's the only way to
Speaker 2: do it, because there is a real story here, which
Speaker 2: is that the president is trying to undermine our elections
Speaker 2: in order to try to steal the midterms. And that's
Speaker 2: about the biggest story that there can be. Now, how
Speaker 2: do you cover it? That's a separate question. And if
Speaker 2: you cover it by just you know, letting that speech
Speaker 2: appear nearly willy with no commentary, is if it's true,
Speaker 2: then that's the opposite of journalism. So CNN and ABC
Speaker 2: and NBC, great jobs, CBS, you know, Wow, you really
Speaker 2: are turning into the next Fox.
Speaker 1: Oh, I got to say, Tony Dekoppele gave Donald Trump
Speaker 1: a lovely flot massage later in the evening. I don't
Speaker 1: know if you saw it, but he actually cooked him
Speaker 1: dinner and then made him a comfortable bed and then
Speaker 1: gave him a flip massage with anointed oils from India.
Speaker 1: It was beautiful. I wish you'd seen it. It was
Speaker 1: really good journalism. Oh, CBS, All right, let's talk about
Speaker 1: Todd Blanche has been a few days since the confirmation hearings.
Speaker 1: They did not go well. The senators were talking to
Speaker 1: him about obviously, the DOJ is supposed to be independent,
Speaker 1: and it's being used to pursue Donald Trump's political opponents.
Speaker 1: And you were his criminal defense lawyer. Why are we
Speaker 1: doing this? I mean, I don't even know where to begin, Corey.
Speaker 1: This guy should not even make it to a hearing
Speaker 1: and he's most likely going to be confirmed. What constitutional
Speaker 1: principles are at risk when concerns are there that prosecutorial
Speaker 1: power is being exercised to beat up on a president's foes.
Speaker 2: Well, you know, there's a lot made of the fact
Speaker 2: that I do want to emphasize this that the Department
Speaker 2: of Justice is supposed to be representing the people the
Speaker 2: cases that brought criminal cases on behalf of the people
Speaker 2: of the United States, not on behalf of the president.
Speaker 2: And of course, the way that Blanche sees himself is
Speaker 2: that he is the personal lawyer of the president. And
Speaker 2: I've said that, you know, on CNN and on this show,
Speaker 2: but you just said something that I want to emphasize
Speaker 2: even more. Mead, Yes, that he sees himself as the
Speaker 2: personal defense lawyer of the president. This was the guy
Speaker 2: that defends he is defendant Donald Trump. In the New
Speaker 2: York case about Stormy Daniels from criminal charges, he went
Speaker 2: after Michael Cohen by trying to just accuse him of
Speaker 2: lying about everything on the stand, even though a lot
Speaker 2: of what he was saying was backed up by evidence.
Speaker 2: Of course, Donald Trump was convicted in that case. And
Speaker 2: what's going on here too, is that that's the kind
Speaker 2: of thud, I'll call it a thug lawyer that we're
Speaker 2: getting as Acting Attorney Drenal is trying to be Attorney General,
Speaker 2: that he's just going after Trump's opponents, defending him at
Speaker 2: all costs, going after his opponents as he would an
Speaker 2: opponent in court. It is really such a travesty.
Speaker 1: Chuck Grassley still has not scheduled a vote yet, which
Speaker 1: is very interesting. And it's not because Chuck Grassley is
Speaker 1: waiting on a case of true blood to arrive to
Speaker 1: keep him living. It's because John Cornyn is very far
Speaker 1: from a yes right now, and it's only going to
Speaker 1: take one Republican no vote in this committee to sink
Speaker 1: the nomination and Professor. As we all know, John Cornyan
Speaker 1: doesn't oh Donald Trump any favors for the rest of
Speaker 1: his life, does he. Donald Trump decided to endorse Nazi
Speaker 1: weasel Ken Paxton, and that's why John Cornan is about
Speaker 1: to become an ex senator. And now John Cornan's vote
Speaker 1: could sink Donald Trump's crooked pick for Attorney General. It's
Speaker 1: kind of brilliant, except I don't know who to root
Speaker 1: for and who to root against.
Speaker 2: Well, you know, a lot of this comes down to
Speaker 2: this slush fund to try to take money that Trump
Speaker 2: got in a illicit deal with the Irs, to deal
Speaker 2: with himself in order to fund money to his allies,
Speaker 2: including those who participated in January sixth. Now that slush fund,
Speaker 2: you know, just so not just so happens. We planned
Speaker 2: this guest guy Perriman, her group stop that slush fund. Literally,
Speaker 2: they are the people that went to court and said,
Speaker 2: I don't think so, like you know, this is illegal,
Speaker 2: and once they got a court order from a judge,
Speaker 2: that started to you know, help get media attention on
Speaker 2: it and to get now here's where it's really relevant
Speaker 2: to these hearings, to get the Attorney general to back
Speaker 2: down or so he says. He said multiple times it's dead.
Speaker 2: But now when Corning says, okay, put it in writing,
Speaker 2: he refuses to do so. And that's one thing that
Speaker 2: really pissed off this senator from Texas that you know,
Speaker 2: essentially not just lying, but just rubbing it into the
Speaker 2: face of the committee that you're pretending, maybe for a
Speaker 2: few seconds, to drop this slush fund and then refusing
Speaker 2: to put it in writing. Well, one thing, you know,
Speaker 2: I talked to Periman about this. Wait for this in
Speaker 2: the interview. Amazing to listen to what's going on with
Speaker 2: the case, you would think that if they really dropped it,
Speaker 2: they have not dropped the case. They are continuing to
Speaker 2: fight for this slush fund against those who would stop it.
Speaker 2: And that suggests the Senator is exactly right. What a
Speaker 2: news worthy moment for that interview, for this battle between
Speaker 2: Cornyan and Trump. You know, let's hope that that Trump
Speaker 2: doesn't come up with some deal that makes cornyin back down.
Speaker 2: It's too important.
Speaker 1: Well, and there's also the not too small factor of
Speaker 1: covering a child rape, which has been Tillis's problem. We
Speaker 1: got to take a quick break, but when we come back,
Speaker 1: I want to pick up on this note, professor, because
Speaker 1: as you know, a federal judge just smacked down this
Speaker 1: IRS settlement and I want to ask you about it
Speaker 1: back in a moment, donn the oath that in the office.
Speaker 4: The New John Fugel Sang Show every day at twelve noon.
Speaker 3: Good afternoon, John, and welcome back to Afternoon Radio.
Speaker 1: I have missed you. Now you're back into the daylight.
Speaker 2: Good afternoon, John. Congraduations on the new show, loving it,
Speaker 2: Congratulations on the changes happening with the show.
Speaker 5: Excited for you, Excited for me personally, like, oh my god,
Speaker 5: I can call an again.
Speaker 4: The New John Fugel Sang Show every day at twelve
Speaker 4: noon on Serious XM Progress Channel one twenty seven, or
Speaker 4: on the Serious XCM after.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to the oath and the office. I'm John Fiegel, saying,
Speaker 1: along with Professor Corey Bretschneider, Corey, federal judge just described
Speaker 1: that IRS agreement that would benefit Trump as an improper
Speaker 1: exercise in self dealing and pretty much smacked out all
Speaker 1: of the corruptions surrounding the entire litigation and even referred
Speaker 1: one of the attorneys involved to state bar authorities. A
Speaker 1: lot to unpack. We already knew this was corrupt. A
Speaker 1: federal judge is now validated that. For those like me
Speaker 1: in the audience, what does self dealing actually mean legally speaking?
Speaker 2: Well, you know, the way that this has been described
Speaker 2: is as a fraud on the court. And that sounds
Speaker 2: like a strong way to put it, and for good reason.
Speaker 2: The whole idea of a lawsuit is supposed to be
Speaker 2: that you have two parties battling it out. Now, think
Speaker 2: about it. The IRS is part of the executive branch
Speaker 2: and Donald Trump is in charge of the executive branch.
Speaker 2: And yet this supposed deal was hashed out between two
Speaker 2: warring parties, the IRS and Trump. No, it was Trump
Speaker 2: and himself. It was a scam, and that's what this
Speaker 2: judge is pulling out. I mentioned the unitary executive theory.
Speaker 2: You know, it used to be that there were theories
Speaker 2: of the executive branch that said you had civil servants,
Speaker 2: the I R. S. Or the Department of Justice is
Speaker 2: technically underneath the president, but they really are, you know,
Speaker 2: legally separate all of those hurdles. Those barriers between the
Speaker 2: president and the agencies are disappearing under the theory that
Speaker 2: Donald Trump and his lackeys are pushing the units of
Speaker 2: executive So in what way is this really a battle
Speaker 2: between Trump and a different entity? No, it's Donald Trump
Speaker 2: self dealing with himself, not in the conflict. And that's
Speaker 2: the fraud on the court that's been called out. There
Speaker 2: isn't a real conflict. I keep mentioning Sky Perryman. I'm
Speaker 2: so excited for listeners to hear it. But you know
Speaker 2: it's an other place where incredibly, they went out and
Speaker 2: they have either people come to them or they seek
Speaker 2: out plaintiffs in these cases who are going to have
Speaker 2: standing to challenge these bs deals, to challenge the slush fund,
Speaker 2: to challenge the needed thing that gave rise to the
Speaker 2: money for the slush fund, which is this fake fraud
Speaker 2: on the court. Lawsuit. So you know, really it's what's
Speaker 2: our guests are often, you know, related to the news
Speaker 2: that you know, definitely we had Senator widen As that
Speaker 2: we were considering whether or not to confirm the d
Speaker 2: n I and the questions of international surveillance. That was
Speaker 2: an amazing episode and this one is too really relevant.
Speaker 1: Okay, well, let me let me just ask you about this,
Speaker 1: because the Catholic Church as a whole policy of their
Speaker 1: own on self dealing, but it's got a bit different language.
Speaker 1: They're not fans. How How rare is it for a
Speaker 1: federal judge to refer an attorney involved in a case
Speaker 1: to state bar authorities.
Speaker 2: It's pretty rare, you know, and it's got to be
Speaker 2: really bad. But think of what I just told you exactly.
Speaker 2: You know, judges don't like being made dupes. And I
Speaker 2: want to see more of it fraught on the court.
Speaker 1: I want to see more of this. I hope it's
Speaker 1: not too late to dispar Pam bond equory. Do you understand.
Speaker 1: I still I'm still holding out hope that Pam BONDI
Speaker 1: could be disbarred for this stuff. Like I'm thrilled to
Speaker 1: see the judicial branch actually punching back and not just
Speaker 1: handing over their money to the ability.
Speaker 2: And I want to say why. You know, judges do
Speaker 2: get emotional, they do get angry. And one of the
Speaker 2: things I think that really angers them is well, straight
Speaker 2: up lying, which we've seen from a lot of the
Speaker 2: Department of Justice. And we've talked about why a presumption
Speaker 2: of trusting the Department of Justice has just evaporated. That
Speaker 2: long tradition is gone, given how much lying there's been.
Speaker 2: That's one thing that makes them really angry. But there's
Speaker 2: what really makes them even more angry when you try
Speaker 2: to give them to rubber stamp a fake agreement with
Speaker 2: what you're presenting as two warring parties but really are not.
Speaker 2: You know, it's like, you know, me and you John
Speaker 2: catch a plot to pretend to have a battle because
Speaker 2: we've come up with a way to fraudulently benefit if
Speaker 2: it looks like we're in a lawsuit, we're lying the
Speaker 2: judge that we get to involve our we're not really
Speaker 2: doing this. But if we get a judge to involve
Speaker 2: ourselves in that, they're not going to be happy. And
Speaker 2: that's exactly what's happened. They're trying to basically rope in
Speaker 2: the judicial sherry to make them a party to a fraud.
Speaker 1: Can I tell you my really unpopular opinion about this, Cory, please,
Speaker 1: My really unpopular opinion about this is that I don't
Speaker 1: want to hear any Democrats complain about it, because the
Speaker 1: Constitution already has mechanisms designed to stop presidents from using
Speaker 1: the public office for their private benefit. The Constitution has
Speaker 1: the emolument's clauses foreign and domestic. As I've told you
Speaker 1: many times, we could have impeached Donald Trump one minute
Speaker 1: into his first inaugural address in twenty seventeen. Jimmy Carter
Speaker 1: gave up a damn peanut farm. Mitt Romney was willing
Speaker 1: to put his gazillions into a blind trust. This president
Speaker 1: has made more money in the last year off the
Speaker 1: office than he ever made on his own in his
Speaker 1: entire life. And I don't see anyone ever mentioning the
Speaker 1: constitutions of mollument's clauses ever, and it's happening out in
Speaker 1: the open, So why shouldn't he do it at this point?
Speaker 1: If even the Democratic Party is not going to risk
Speaker 1: the bad vibe of using the eyeword related.
Speaker 2: To this, well, it is impeachable. Our whole episode about
Speaker 2: the more than two billion dollars that the president has stolen,
Speaker 2: not just benefited, using the office in order to profit
Speaker 2: himself is exhibit A. And the reason it's like.
Speaker 1: It almost sounds like you don't trust Crypto, professor, It
Speaker 1: almost sounds like he's calling Crypto a scam.
Speaker 2: But go on, and you know what's the argument for
Speaker 2: why this specifically is a place for impeachment. Well, as
Speaker 2: you say, and that it is true, you're not seeing it.
Speaker 2: You know, usually in the media you are hearing about
Speaker 2: it and seeing it on this podcast. We have two
Speaker 2: emolument's clauses, one domestic, one international, and Trump is continually
Speaker 2: violating both. And he's doing it for two reasons. One
Speaker 2: is he thinks he has immunity. He shouldn't and doesn't
Speaker 2: have immunity. These aren't official acts, but he's deluded himself
Speaker 2: into thinking that they are. And yes, he can be prosecuted,
Speaker 2: I think for some of these crimes after he leaves office.
Speaker 2: Except for the fact, and here's the second thing that's
Speaker 2: complicated that we don't have laws on the books that
Speaker 2: take the emoluments clauses and turn them into criminal law.
Speaker 2: This is a subtle point, but I think it's worth making. Yes,
Speaker 2: it's prohibited under the constitution, but the way the constitution
Speaker 2: works is you need to translate it into laws on
Speaker 2: the books passed by Congress, and we don't have enough.
Speaker 2: It's possible to do it, but it should be crystal
Speaker 2: clause clear. We have prosecuting prosecutors are saying it would
Speaker 2: be hard to make the case because they're too weak. Well,
Speaker 2: I think there's an obvious answer, and Jamie Raskin has
Speaker 2: been one of the people who has done something about us.
Speaker 2: You have to have legislation that makes it not not
Speaker 2: you know, I don't should we indict him or not?
Speaker 2: Should we prosecute him or not? Make the laws so
Speaker 2: clear that if you use the office to steal from
Speaker 2: the American public, you're going to be prospects.
Speaker 1: The laws are already clear. Financial disclosures last week show
Speaker 1: us that Trump's company received millions from foreign business interests
Speaker 1: while related trade matters we're still pending before the US government.
Speaker 1: Can you imagine if Hillary Clinton had been making money
Speaker 1: from foreign corporations while they had legislation pending in front
Speaker 1: of her husband while he was president. I think our
Speaker 1: Republican friends would have impeached them using existing laws very effectively.
Speaker 1: I mean, ethics scholars have always warned us about presidents
Speaker 1: having extensive private business interests. But turns out, go ahead
Speaker 1: and do it violate all those norms because no one's
Speaker 1: going to stop you. I mean, yeah, they could impeach
Speaker 1: him for it. They could, they don't want to.
Speaker 2: Let's talk about two things. One is, and this is
Speaker 2: we're in heated agreement about this. That the you know,
Speaker 2: in the absence of criminal laws, making something obviously illegal,
Speaker 2: and that's the situation I think that we're in. We
Speaker 2: do have another mechanism for removing a president. That's impeachment.
Speaker 2: And when the Constitution says that an impeachabable offense is
Speaker 2: a high crime and misdemeanor, it doesn't mean a criminal offense.
Speaker 2: It means a crime against the Constitution, against the Republic,
Speaker 2: against the people, and the emoluments clause violations are primary there.
Speaker 2: So yes, Second, that we have a democratic majority in
Speaker 2: the House, I think, in addition to other articles of impeachment,
Speaker 2: the first ones definitely should be about these emoluments clause violations.
Speaker 2: Now here's the second thing, though, that we need to
Speaker 2: do because this is also a problem. When I talked
Speaker 2: to prosecutors and we had Joyce Vance on the show,
Speaker 2: and just as a reminder, she's one of the people
Speaker 2: who think amazing that you know that even the most
Speaker 2: seasoned federal prosecutors who agree with us that this should
Speaker 2: be a crimer like I don't know that if I
Speaker 2: brought that case that I could get a conviction. That
Speaker 2: tells me that we need laws on the books to
Speaker 2: make it easier. Not just talking about impeachment now, I'm
Speaker 2: talking about putting somebody in prison, just to remind people
Speaker 2: you impeach and remove a president, they don't go to prison,
Speaker 2: they're just out of office. That would be great, but
Speaker 2: this is an offense that is worthy of a prison sentence,
Speaker 2: and we may clarify.
Speaker 1: Them make Grifter is afraid of prison again. I agree.
Speaker 1: And you know, look, my unpopular opinion is Democrats should
Speaker 1: be impeaching this guy for something else. Once a week.
Speaker 1: Every week, there should be new articles of impeachment introduced
Speaker 1: by a new Democratic representative and they will go nowhere
Speaker 1: and there should be a lot of hype and news
Speaker 1: coverage for it. Because when the Republicans were introducing seventy
Speaker 1: plus repeal Obamacare bills, and we laughed and laughed at them.
Speaker 1: What they were doing in that doomed Kamakazi legislation was
Speaker 1: fundraising and giving a mission statement and reminding their base
Speaker 1: of exactly what they were fighting for. In that case,
Speaker 1: it was taking healthcare away from Americans because they're evil.
Speaker 1: But I think you want to see a Democratic party fighting.
Speaker 1: Get in the ring. Now. Let me be willing to
Speaker 1: see you take a punch and even get knocked down
Speaker 1: and not get there, but you're going to fight for it,
Speaker 1: and you're not going to not fight for impeachment because
Speaker 1: you know it's going to fail. I think we want
Speaker 1: to see that. Al Green alone can't do it, and
Speaker 1: I think Democrats, if they did, it would raise a
Speaker 1: lot of awareness about this kind of corruption and the
Speaker 1: emolument's clause. Most Americans don't know what the emoluments clause is.
Speaker 1: They should and I think you can fundraise off it
Speaker 1: as well. So I'd like to see them just get
Speaker 1: in the spirit.
Speaker 2: There's another really, you know, I'm of the bl be
Speaker 2: that although the impeachments didn't result, half the impeachments in
Speaker 2: the history of the Republic I should say, we're in
Speaker 2: Trump's first term, and you know they weren't a mistake.
Speaker 2: They let us see the threat to democracy, both in
Speaker 2: the attempt to get dirt on his opponent Joe Biden.
Speaker 2: Still relevant to the speech, of course, the impeachment for
Speaker 2: January sixth was called for, and one of the things
Speaker 2: that it does, and Johnny, I think you're getting at
Speaker 2: this too, is not just rise awareness of the general crimes,
Speaker 2: but we get information. And so much of the problem
Speaker 2: of this presidency is the black box that's hiding the
Speaker 2: illegal activity, the fraud. That's part of what sky Perriman
Speaker 2: is trying to do after this speech and her lawsuits
Speaker 2: with Democracy Forward to get information about what's going on
Speaker 2: behind the scenes try to steal the midterm elections. But
Speaker 2: it also would happen through impeachment, where we would get
Speaker 2: information as we did in the first term.
Speaker 1: So before we hit our break and then the interview,
Speaker 1: because now you've got me dying to hear it really quick.
Speaker 1: This is really disturbing. After Ice has now officially killed
Speaker 1: believe they're eighth person of the Year, the reports are
Speaker 1: that the FBI is going to stop investigating confrontations involving
Speaker 1: ICE personnel. In other words, no oversight. If these masked
Speaker 1: cowards with badges murder people, the FBI, the federal government
Speaker 1: won't take any interest in such violence. I mean, Corey,
Speaker 1: if ever there was a time for independent oversight being
Speaker 1: an important component of constitutional governance, wouldn't it be this?
Speaker 1: I mean, Americans might die and the FBI won't get
Speaker 1: in the way.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean it is, you know, talking about a
Speaker 2: veil of secrecy and hiding information. What's happening we know
Speaker 2: is that ICE and I'll just emphasize part of the
Speaker 2: reason why is structural. They've eliminated essentially the training for
Speaker 2: ICE officers, so you know, yeah, grut is a gun
Speaker 2: people who really shouldn't be working in these positions. Refusing
Speaker 2: to train them, We're going to have not fewer, but
Speaker 2: more of these horrific incidents in which people on the
Speaker 2: street are having their basic rights human rights abused by ICE.
Speaker 2: And rather than you know, who's supposed to be looking
Speaker 2: into these offenses, it's the federal government. It's the FBI,
Speaker 2: and they are refusing to do it. They are just
Speaker 2: adding to the veil of secrecy, as listeners know. And
Speaker 2: I'll just emphasize it again. Other entities have to step up.
Speaker 2: And I am really an advocate for state attorneys generals,
Speaker 2: local prosecutors bringing charges against ice officers. I know about
Speaker 2: at least one investigation in Minnesota, but you know, we
Speaker 2: now know there might have been a debate about that.
Speaker 2: Isn't this a role for the federal government. They have
Speaker 2: just abdicated the federal government their role in enforcing the
Speaker 2: criminal laws. If you murder somebody, that's a violation of
Speaker 2: local Every state in this country bans murder, and you
Speaker 2: know what, those laws have to be enforced. They're not
Speaker 2: going to be enforced by the federal government, so they
Speaker 2: have to be for us well, state prosecuted.
Speaker 6: You know.
Speaker 1: NPR had an interview with a woman named Ashley Bruyette.
Speaker 1: She is the ex wife of the man David Bruyette,
Speaker 1: who shot and killed Johann Deran Guerrero four times in
Speaker 1: Maine last week in front of his child. This man
Speaker 1: was not the target, He had a social Security number,
Speaker 1: he was following all the rules, He was unarmed. He
Speaker 1: was shot in the vehicle, pulled out of the vehicle
Speaker 1: in front of his three year old daughter, handcuffed once
Speaker 1: he was pulled out and shot and left to bleed
Speaker 1: to death on the sidewalk. And this man's ex wife
Speaker 1: told NPR that he called her and begged her to
Speaker 1: say positive things about his character. She said that he
Speaker 1: was abusive. She said that he's already asked her to
Speaker 1: lie for him. His former best friend from high school
Speaker 1: testified on his ex wife's behalf when they broke up
Speaker 1: because he was so abusive. She played a tape of
Speaker 1: this man threatening to have all the women in her
Speaker 1: family's throats cut. In a twenty twenty one court filing,
Speaker 1: this guy was stripped of his firearms temporarily because of
Speaker 1: complaints of abuse from his second ex wife, Corey. I'm like,
Speaker 1: is it too much to ask that we screened these people?
Speaker 1: The man who describing just shot and killed an innocent
Speaker 1: man last week who was getting a citizenship, and they
Speaker 1: had the wrong guy, and we're still paying his salary.
Speaker 1: He's not even suspended, And the FBI will not intervene
Speaker 1: or investigate.
Speaker 2: Yes, as a matter of as a matter of policy,
Speaker 2: they're just not going to look into this wrongdoing. As
Speaker 2: a matter of hiring and training, there is none There
Speaker 2: are no standards, and you know. That's why I should
Speaker 2: say too. You could hear me talk shout through the
Speaker 2: rooftops about the need for local prosecutors to bring these indictments,
Speaker 2: which they definitely can, although they're reluctant to have been
Speaker 2: reluctant to do so. But you want to hear the
Speaker 2: best argument for it, it's just look at the facts,
Speaker 2: look at the brutality, look at the individuals who are involved,
Speaker 2: and then you see why we need the criminal law
Speaker 2: to be in forced and why the FBI and the
Speaker 2: federal government. Well, this goes back to Todd blanche. This
Speaker 2: is the guy who's going to be in charge of
Speaker 2: whether or not to prosecute Ice. I don't think that
Speaker 2: the same person who's setting up a slush fund for
Speaker 2: Donald Trump and then lying about whether or not he's
Speaker 2: backing off it is going to be the person to
Speaker 2: enforce justice for Americans.
Speaker 1: God bless our fascists for being so incompetent. All right,
Speaker 1: we have to take a break. Let me come back.
Speaker 1: The professor assistant with sky Berravin.
Speaker 3: Don't go away, Heyl Glenn Kirshner here, So, friends, I
Speaker 3: hope you'll join me on my audio podcast, Justice Matters.
Speaker 6: Do you care about ethics and government, criminal justice reform,
Speaker 6: a conflict free federal judiciary.
Speaker 1: I thought so.
Speaker 6: On Justice Matters, we take on issues involving the need
Speaker 6: to reform our government and its institutions, and we talk
Speaker 6: about real, achievable reform. I hope you'll join us look
Speaker 6: for Justice Matters wherever you usually get your podcasts.
Speaker 2: Welcome back to the Oath in the Office. It's really
Speaker 2: my pleasure to introduce Sky Perryman. Sky Perryman is the
Speaker 2: CEO of Democracy Forward, and I would call Democracy Forward
Speaker 2: one of the premier legal organizations fighting Trump right now
Speaker 2: in court, trying to defend our democracy. We'll talk about
Speaker 2: what they've been doing, incredible work. It's been my honor
Speaker 2: to work with them on the tariff's case. Sky is
Speaker 2: a graduate of Georgetown Law School. She was named one
Speaker 2: of Time magazines one hundred most influential people, and she
Speaker 2: joins me to discuss the legal fight against the Trump
Speaker 2: administration and the fight for our constitution. So, Sky Perryman,
Speaker 2: Welcome to the Oath in the Office.
Speaker 7: Thanks so much for having me, what a pleasure.
Speaker 2: Can you just start off by telling me about the organization,
Speaker 2: what your overall strategy, is. I want to get into
Speaker 2: some of your incredible legal fights and really legal victories.
Speaker 2: Part of our podcast is about the threat to democracy,
Speaker 2: but it's also about why citizens need to be fighting
Speaker 2: back and the hope that this actually works as worked
Speaker 2: in the past, will work in the future. And your
Speaker 2: organizations really really showed that. So just start off by
Speaker 2: telling us what are you all about and what have
Speaker 2: been your strategies in dealing with Trump two point zero.
Speaker 5: We're about making sure that the American people can create
Speaker 5: the conditions needed, which are democratic conditions and democracy where
Speaker 5: all people can thrive. And what has happened, as you know,
Speaker 5: over the past few years in our country, and this
Speaker 5: did not start at twenty twenty five when President Trump
Speaker 5: came back into office, but we have been for a
Speaker 5: variety of years. We've been admitst a democratic backslide in
Speaker 5: this country where far right extremism at the state and
Speaker 5: local level has done everything from banned books to ban
Speaker 5: healthcare to try to prevent people from voting. We have
Speaker 5: a rise of misinformation and dism in this country. We
Speaker 5: have a challenging Supreme Court landscape where the Supreme Court
Speaker 5: has in many instances reversed the rights of people as
Speaker 5: opposed to protect the rights of people, and all of
Speaker 5: that is happening against a backdrop across the world where
Speaker 5: so many countries are facing these backslides. The number of
Speaker 5: democracies in the world is declining as a number of
Speaker 5: autocracies is rising. So it's against this global context. And then,
Speaker 5: of course, a year and a half ago, with the
Speaker 5: inauguration of President Trump and the way he has chosen
Speaker 5: to govern, we've seen that backslide really accelerate, and so
Speaker 5: our organization is about making sure that people in this
Speaker 5: country can utilize the power and the tools that our
Speaker 5: democracy provides for them to be able to protect their communities,
Speaker 5: protect their rights, to push forward when that is possible.
Speaker 5: And one of those tools is the ability of people
Speaker 5: to go to court and to demand that their rights
Speaker 5: be defended. And so we do a lot of court work.
Speaker 5: We represent all of our clients free of charge. We
Speaker 5: believe that it's important that the American people be able
Speaker 5: to access the courts, even if they can't afford excellent lawyers.
Speaker 5: We have excellent lawyers here who do that work pro bono,
Speaker 5: so that we can make sure that the Constitution is
Speaker 5: defended and that people are defended.
Speaker 2: Well, you have put together an amazing team of litigators,
Speaker 2: people who are in formerly in the Department of Justice.
Speaker 2: I know many people served in the department before it
Speaker 2: was taken over by Trump and trump Ism. And you've
Speaker 2: been having amazing victories too in the federal courts in
Speaker 2: where so much of the pushback has happened. So one
Speaker 2: of the things that I know you've been deeply involved
Speaker 2: in and have had success, and this is one of
Speaker 2: those hopeful moments, is in pushing back against Trump's corrupt
Speaker 2: deal with the IRS and also his related creation of
Speaker 2: this slush fund, this attack fund on his opponents. So
Speaker 2: talk to me about both of these cases and how
Speaker 2: your litigation strategy has really helped to stop this in
Speaker 2: its tracks. I think that our listeners will want to
Speaker 2: know not just what the issues are, but like, how
Speaker 2: did you do this? Well?
Speaker 5: We do have such an amazing team and the team
Speaker 5: though we have amazing clients across this country. People in
Speaker 5: communities are stepping forward even when powerful institutions have been
Speaker 5: stepping back or sitting on the sidelines. And so the
Speaker 5: slush fund, this creation of the one point seven seven
Speaker 5: six billion dollars slush fund, which is a total corrupt
Speaker 5: political kickback scheme to use taxpayer dollars to try to
Speaker 5: compensate people who have been convicted of in many instances,
Speaker 5: people that pled guilty of violent crimes, whether that is
Speaker 5: violent restrictions and trying to keep people from being able
Speaker 5: to access reproductive healthcare clinics, which is unlawful under a
Speaker 5: broad bipartisan act, or people that participated in January sixth
Speaker 5: and tried to disrupt the peaceful transition of presidential power,
Speaker 5: and on and on. This slush fund that the government
Speaker 5: creates has been unlawful from the start, but there was
Speaker 5: a real question about who would really be able to
Speaker 5: step up and challenge it. And so we represent an
Speaker 5: amazing coalition of plainffs. We represent a former prosecutor who
Speaker 5: was fired by Donald Trump's administration this because he worked
Speaker 5: on the January sixth cases. He did nothing wrong, did
Speaker 5: his job, but got fired. We represent a coalition of
Speaker 5: reproductive health care providers who for many years, even way
Speaker 5: before January sixth, when they go to work, they face
Speaker 5: violence and threats because of anti abortion extremism that is
Speaker 5: so violent, So you know, we represent them. We represent
Speaker 5: the City of New haven that's been retaliated against by
Speaker 5: this administration because the administration doesn't like the way it
Speaker 5: treats immigrants in its community. And then we're really pleased
Speaker 5: to represent Common Cause, which is of course, you know,
Speaker 5: an amazing pro democracy organization. So we have this big
Speaker 5: coalition of plain effs and we were able to file suit.
Speaker 5: You know, the president can't do things without acting through
Speaker 5: the federal agencies, and here you have a number of
Speaker 5: these federal offices that were establishing the slush fund. We
Speaker 5: filed suit in the Eastern District of Virginia in federal court,
Speaker 5: and we immediately were able to get the fund paused
Speaker 5: because the government would not even agree. And I think
Speaker 5: your listeners would be interested in this, like the government
Speaker 5: would not even agree to pause the fund while the
Speaker 5: court could set a hearing schedule. So this is one
Speaker 5: of the Trump administration's core philosophies has been to try
Speaker 5: to outrun accountability, or to try to run so fast
Speaker 5: that the courts can't act. And about a year and
Speaker 5: a half ago when we started lit getting these cases,
Speaker 5: it was very hard sometimes to get the courts to
Speaker 5: act quickly because they would you know, they would be
Speaker 5: worried that, you know, are they acting to hastily now
Speaker 5: that they've seen this administration try to outrun them. We're
Speaker 5: seeing the federal courts understand, okay, if you're not even
Speaker 5: going to agree to pause something so that we can
Speaker 5: get a hearing schedule, we're going to go ahead an
Speaker 5: issue in order. So that's what the court did, and
Speaker 5: then she had a full hearing on our ow for
Speaker 5: pulmonary injunction, where she found that, of course our clients
Speaker 5: had made the case that they were likely to succeed.
Speaker 5: And so now now the matter is paused, that the
Speaker 5: slush fund is paused while we litigate the merits of
Speaker 5: the matter.
Speaker 7: Now, what's interesting about this case.
Speaker 5: Another thing that has been quite interesting is that the
Speaker 5: Department of Justice has made a range of claims. You know,
Speaker 5: Todd blanch goes to Congress and says, the slush fund's dead,
Speaker 5: we're not really doing it. And our case has really
Speaker 5: been the instrument I think that has shown the American
Speaker 5: people what's happening here because he goes to Congress and
Speaker 5: says one thing. But then when we say, well will
Speaker 5: you will you swear on yours and put put a
Speaker 5: paper down in Court. You know, all of a sudden,
Speaker 5: he's not interested in that. And so I think that
Speaker 5: this is a great example of how litigation can.
Speaker 7: Be helpful to protect people.
Speaker 5: We want to protect taxpayers, we want to protect our clients. Obviously,
Speaker 5: we want to protect against corruption. We certainly will our
Speaker 5: clients could be harmed if these people go out and
Speaker 5: get checks from the government. But we also you know,
Speaker 5: this is a good mechanism really exposing how this administration
Speaker 5: is operating. So that's been the challenge of the slush fund. Now,
Speaker 5: the other piece was this.
Speaker 2: Litigation that there's so important what you're saying and this word.
Speaker 2: So if you want an example of where a litigation
Speaker 2: group has stopped the government clear in its tracks, this
Speaker 2: really is it. And of course on the podcast, we're
Speaker 2: talking a lot about the heroic role that federal judges
Speaker 2: have played outside of the Supreme Court, but that doesn't
Speaker 2: come from nowhere. You need a case and you need clients,
Speaker 2: and that's what you've been able to do. But just
Speaker 2: to clarify, because I think this is really important and
Speaker 2: I'm not seeing it get the kind of coverage that
Speaker 2: it should get. We saw the Acting Attorney General say
Speaker 2: essentially that the slush fund is dead. But now what
Speaker 2: I hear you saying is that he's lying to us.
Speaker 2: And maybe that shouldn't come as a surprise, but it
Speaker 2: is an important point. So am I right that they're
Speaker 2: still fighting you in court at the same time that
Speaker 2: they're pretending that it's dead.
Speaker 7: Absolutely.
Speaker 5: Not only are they fighting in court, just to be
Speaker 5: very clear, they are refusing to sign documents to say
Speaker 5: instead like, if it's dead, then let's move on, right,
Speaker 5: But that's not anything that they've been willing to swear to.
Speaker 5: And actually the judge in our case gave them a
Speaker 5: few days to show up with evidence that the slush
Speaker 5: phone was dead, and they couldn't do that. And so
Speaker 5: I think, you know, we're we're going to continue to
Speaker 5: monitor it day by day.
Speaker 7: We're preparing the case.
Speaker 5: There's a trial date on the case for later this year,
Speaker 5: so you know we will we have a schedule and everything.
Speaker 5: But part of this really is the American people getting
Speaker 5: to see with their own eyes the way this administration
Speaker 5: says one thing but then won't really back it up
Speaker 5: and tries to outrun accountability.
Speaker 7: And what we know about the American.
Speaker 5: People is that the vast majority of people in this country,
Speaker 5: regardless of whether they agree with each other on a
Speaker 5: lot of things, they don't think that office holders and
Speaker 5: people that are presenting before courts and people that are
Speaker 5: presenting before Congress should be making incorrect and untruthful statements.
Speaker 5: And so I think this is one of really those
Speaker 5: things that's captured the imagination of a whole lot of
Speaker 5: people across the political spectrum because of what we've seen,
Speaker 5: which just briefly, I think you wanted to talk about
Speaker 5: the IRS settlement which emanated, you know, which came out
Speaker 5: of this Florida case that the Trump organization filed against
Speaker 5: the IRS, and then Trump came out and President Trump
Speaker 5: came out and announced I've sued myself. Well, that's not
Speaker 5: a real good way to get the federal courts to
Speaker 5: be excited. You have to have actual adversity in cases
Speaker 5: and controversy in this country. And so what we did
Speaker 5: in that case was we represented a range of former
Speaker 5: officials that had served in IRS or in Treasury, had
Speaker 5: served both Republicans and Democratic administrations to explain to the
Speaker 5: court the various options that the court had. The Court
Speaker 5: ended up taking those options, appointing Independent and Meki to ride,
Speaker 5: you know, really ended up taking a lot of that,
Speaker 5: we believe from the briefs.
Speaker 7: And then at the same time, we were very pleased
Speaker 7: to see.
Speaker 5: Thirty five federal judges, former federal judges, judges that had
Speaker 5: been appointed by Republicans and Democrats file a pay were
Speaker 5: in the case, really asking the court to consider whether
Speaker 5: the Trump organization had engaged in fraud on the court.
Speaker 5: And that's where the fireworks in that matter obviously have been.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean really seem to I would have said,
Speaker 2: stopped them, called in their tracks, but of course they're
Speaker 2: pretending that this is over, at least in the slush
Speaker 2: fund case, and it sounds like continuing. I mean, how
Speaker 2: do you see it seems like an interesting case study.
Speaker 2: We talk so often about stopping this administration, about the
Speaker 2: role of the courts, but it seems like this is
Speaker 2: a case study in both stopping them in court. You
Speaker 2: did get this injunction against them, but yet that had
Speaker 2: a wider ramification and push politically the acting Attorney General
Speaker 2: to at least pretend that he was stopping all of this. So,
Speaker 2: I mean, talk to me more. I want to ask
Speaker 2: more about how you get clients, because I think that's
Speaker 2: an interesting part of all of this and really part
Speaker 2: that's often not reported on. But talk to me more
Speaker 2: generally about how have you seen this work, the sort
Speaker 2: of combo of litigation and political pressure and getting them
Speaker 2: to back off, at least publicly as you continue to fight.
Speaker 2: I mean, you're not just a litigation group, of course,
Speaker 2: you're engaged in trying to stop an administration that's intent
Speaker 2: on well destroying democracy, creating a fund to shut down
Speaker 2: its critics.
Speaker 5: Every single day we see that, we say it's courts
Speaker 5: plus people, and we always are very clear eyed that
Speaker 5: the courts are hugely important tool and they're a tool
Speaker 5: that we should not underestimate. Even as one may be
Speaker 5: frustrated with some of the decisions out of the US
Speaker 5: Supreme Court, the courts have been a huge tool. They're
Speaker 5: protecting people every single day, and at the end of
Speaker 5: the day, it is going to be the people. And
Speaker 5: so our work at democracy for it is really aimed
Speaker 5: at using both the courts and the people. But to
Speaker 5: be clear, for us, the courts are a major way
Speaker 5: that people can have their voices heard. Now we have
Speaker 5: seen over and over again that the Act, you know,
Speaker 5: we have a saying around here. You know, if you
Speaker 5: don't fight, you can't win. And we have seen over
Speaker 5: and over that the act of filing a lawsuit on
Speaker 5: behalf of brave clients who are willing to get into
Speaker 5: court with us, that that action has often delayed or
Speaker 5: stopped the administration in their tracks even before we get
Speaker 5: court orders. So some examples on that. We filed a
Speaker 5: case to block the administration's attempt to cut off funding
Speaker 5: for K through twelve education and higher education based on
Speaker 5: teaching real history. They said, if you don't align with
Speaker 5: the White House's views on civil rights or you know
Speaker 5: you're you're gonna you don't get your funding. We filed
Speaker 5: a case in federal court before a judge that President
Speaker 5: Trump himself nominated. We won a court order on behalf
Speaker 5: of our brave clients in that case, finding that this letter,
Speaker 5: this dear colleague letter, was unlawful.
Speaker 7: But the administration didn't even appeal that.
Speaker 5: They who are the letter up walked it back and
Speaker 5: you know everything is blocked now. We see that a
Speaker 5: lot with our funding freeze case. We are still actively
Speaker 5: litigating it. It's on appeal. We blocked this nationwide funding freeze.
Speaker 5: We had to go to court to block it. But
Speaker 5: what you saw was that the action of going to
Speaker 5: court and having a federal judge very early early days
Speaker 5: of the administration say you know what is happening here,
Speaker 5: this looks completely arbitrary. That actually put the White House
Speaker 5: in a difficult spot in their first White House press
Speaker 5: or where they had to show up and start defending
Speaker 5: why people's Medicaid portals were closed and why meals on
Speaker 5: wheels might not be working in a community. And so
Speaker 5: this is really a core tool, and it's a tool
Speaker 5: I think that is underappreciated people that say that their
Speaker 5: strategy is they're going to try to work with the administration,
Speaker 5: They're going to try to do deals with the administration.
Speaker 5: I mean, I can talk a lot about how I
Speaker 5: don't think that strategy is going to pay off for people.
Speaker 5: But even if you have that strategy, the way you
Speaker 5: get to the negotiating table is to assert your rights
Speaker 5: in court and to file a lawsuit. And we see
Speaker 5: that in our courts every single day.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and we've seen that over and over with those
Speaker 2: who have tried to negotiate that they think they're giving
Speaker 2: an inch. And then of course the administration says, look,
Speaker 2: how weak these people are. Let's just ask exactly this
Speaker 2: has seen that with the law firms, with the universities,
Speaker 2: and your strategy. I think of saying this is illegal,
Speaker 2: you know, beginning with that, that puts you in a
Speaker 2: much better negotiating place. I mean, I also just want
Speaker 2: to emphasize too, what you said, which is, although you
Speaker 2: know this is litigation and there is an aspect that's negotiation,
Speaker 2: it also is publicity that this is. You know, so
Speaker 2: much of the fact that the slush fund is being
Speaker 2: covered in this fake deal with the IRS, which is,
Speaker 2: as you said, really a deal of Donald Trump and
Speaker 2: himself and there's no real lawsuit there. All of that
Speaker 2: was exposed through the litigation. So that's why I think
Speaker 2: this is so important. I mean this, Yeah, I think in.
Speaker 5: This media environment where there's such sensationalism and their algorithms
Speaker 5: are feeding you things, you know, one thing we have
Speaker 5: found is that a way, not always but a pretty
Speaker 5: surefire way to cut through a lot of the noise
Speaker 5: and to really focus the public on what is actually
Speaker 5: happening is through bringing litigation. Because the litigation, the facts
Speaker 5: come out. A break over Garcia, right, everybody remembers mister Garcia.
Speaker 5: His entire story blew up this idea that the White
Speaker 5: House had that they were going to be able to
Speaker 5: remove people from the country without any process, and that
Speaker 5: the American people weren't going to care because people got
Speaker 5: to know mister Garcia's situation and this story, and that
Speaker 5: doesn't happen if you don't file the lawsuits.
Speaker 2: And you know, it's such an important point that I
Speaker 2: want to come back to, and it was one of
Speaker 2: the first things that you said that you know, you
Speaker 2: need the clients, You need the people, the brave people
Speaker 2: who are going to stand up and say this is
Speaker 2: illegal and I've been harmed. And I think that isn't
Speaker 2: something that maybe even listeners of this podcast or those
Speaker 2: who are watching the news more generally always understand about
Speaker 2: the way our courts work. You know, it's not like,
Speaker 2: at least in this country, that you could come in
Speaker 2: and say you've acted unconstitutionally in some abstract idea. You
Speaker 2: need an individual who's been harmed. And that's one of
Speaker 2: the real successes that you've had in these lawsuits, both
Speaker 2: in the irs case but also in the slush fund case,
Speaker 2: and finding the actual people who have been harmed. So
Speaker 2: talk to me more about that, like how do you
Speaker 2: find clients? You know, what's it like for them to
Speaker 2: stand up to the administration. They of course need to
Speaker 2: give their names. Tell us about that about these hero
Speaker 2: kind of unsung heroes of so much of the resistance
Speaker 2: to Trump right now, they are.
Speaker 5: The heroes, and we, you know, we really want to
Speaker 5: lift up the role that ordinary people.
Speaker 7: Of course I don't think they're ordinary. I think they're extraordinary, but.
Speaker 5: Just people that are living in all different walks of
Speaker 5: life who have said, you know, I can see what's
Speaker 5: happening to my community, I can see what's happening to
Speaker 5: my family, I can see what's happening in my country,
Speaker 5: and I want to do something about it. It really
Speaker 5: is the thing that motivates us every day, that motivates
Speaker 5: our team.
Speaker 7: So sometimes clients, in many instances, clients come to us.
Speaker 5: I mean, you know, when Elon Musk was running through
Speaker 5: Washington decimating our civil servants, right the people that have
Speaker 5: dedicated their careers to serving the American public, there was
Speaker 5: a big panic about you know, what were they to do?
Speaker 5: How were they to respond? So in many instances clients
Speaker 5: do come to us, But in some instances, people don't
Speaker 5: know how to find a lawyer, they don't know that
Speaker 5: they can be represented free of charge. And also because
Speaker 5: of the way and I know your audience follows this,
Speaker 5: because of the way the laws have been interpreted, sometimes
Speaker 5: a single individual isn't actually the only planet that you need.
Speaker 7: Because we want to make sure.
Speaker 5: That we can get relief for everyone in the country,
Speaker 5: and the courts increasingly are looking at sort of like
Speaker 5: how widespread the harm is?
Speaker 7: How can we demonstrate that? So we do a lot
Speaker 7: of work.
Speaker 5: I mean, we represent a lot of associations, a lot
Speaker 5: of groups that have members who are harmed by these
Speaker 5: unlawful actions, but that can demonstrate that that harm is widespread,
Speaker 5: which helps us when court orders that can help more
Speaker 5: people as opposed to just you know, helping one or
Speaker 5: two individuals, and a lot of that work. You know,
Speaker 5: now it's much easier. A year and a half into this,
Speaker 5: when the administration first came on the scene and was
Speaker 5: really doing such harm to people, there was a lot
Speaker 5: of fear among organizations if we cross them, what are
Speaker 5: they going to do?
Speaker 7: Well?
Speaker 5: What the problem with the way the administration has operated
Speaker 5: with their overreach is the only thing that's really won.
Speaker 5: The only way you really can get your way with
Speaker 5: this administration right now has been to sue them. So
Speaker 5: now a lot of institutions or more institutions are seeing that,
Speaker 5: which has been helpful in making sure we can make
Speaker 5: sure that people and communities can get into court.
Speaker 7: But there is a lot of fear.
Speaker 5: I mean, people are very afraid because the administration is
Speaker 5: wanting them to be afraid. But I will tell you
Speaker 5: we have seen in our cases that litigation has actually
Speaker 5: been a protectant against people. I say all the time,
Speaker 5: this administration knows what to do with weakness, they don't
Speaker 5: always know what to do with strength. I mean, they
Speaker 5: will come after people no fault of their own, including
Speaker 5: incredibly buried and courageous people. So I'm not saying it's
Speaker 5: one hundred percent, but in general, in general, they are
Speaker 5: much more interested in targets that they believe will capitulate
Speaker 5: or will pull back, as opposed to people and communities
Speaker 5: that will confront them in court. And that's really been
Speaker 5: the north star for a lot of our clients.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and of course the litigation that we're talking about
Speaker 2: the creation of a slush fund to aid your allies
Speaker 2: Trump allies and to shut down his opponents. What a
Speaker 2: perfect example of the threat that people feel. But also,
Speaker 2: I mean, what a great point that litigation is actually
Speaker 2: what pushes them back. I mean, when you look at
Speaker 2: those who have caved in the universities I'm thinking of
Speaker 2: in particular, and of course to the law firms, those
Speaker 2: universities who have fought back have often won, and those
Speaker 2: who behave have been asked for more and more. And
Speaker 2: so when people you know that at my university or
Speaker 2: at others, are asking should we fight or should we
Speaker 2: back down, it's like there is no you know, partially
Speaker 2: backing down, there is no compromise. They're going to just
Speaker 2: demand more and more. In litigation is the thing that
Speaker 2: actually protects you. It's not to say you can't negotiate,
Speaker 2: you know, once you begin to litigate and you know,
Speaker 2: maybe you could make a reasonable settlement then, but backing
Speaker 2: down is about the worst thing you can do in
Speaker 2: the face of such a bully that's trying to destroy democracy.
Speaker 5: Well, one thing we say is, you know the cost
Speaker 5: of inaction and the cost of action, and right now
Speaker 5: there is a lot of people afraid of how costly
Speaker 5: what the consequences would be for pushing.
Speaker 7: Back or for acting and their right to be afraid.
Speaker 5: This is a really scary time. But what we know
Speaker 5: about this time, and what the real risk assessments would show,
Speaker 5: is that the cost of inaction is higher than the
Speaker 5: cost of action. And I think that sometimes in these discussions,
Speaker 5: whether they're in boardrooms at universities or at companies, the
Speaker 5: cost of inaction gets minimized. And when you're looking at
Speaker 5: a political movement and an administration in this country that
Speaker 5: does not want to be held accountable to the constitution,
Speaker 5: that does not want a democracy that is available to
Speaker 5: all people, the cost of not doing anything or far
Speaker 5: far higher than the cost of stepping up and being
Speaker 5: part of the work to defend these rights and this
Speaker 5: form of government.
Speaker 2: Yeah, let's talk about action and defense of democracy. Can
Speaker 2: you tell us just some of I mean, of course,
Speaker 2: one of the huge stories of the moment is that
Speaker 2: Donald Trump has given a speech about threatening our elections,
Speaker 2: claiming that they are insecure, and of course using that
Speaker 2: as an excuse potentially to continue to cheat himself. He's tried,
Speaker 2: through various proposed legislation to limit the right to vote
Speaker 2: of his opponents. And I know that you have a
Speaker 2: plethora of pieces of litigation, a number of lawsuits that
Speaker 2: are challenging this attempt to shut down democracy, both when
Speaker 2: it comes to protecting our votes and also to get
Speaker 2: transparency when it comes to some of the stuff that's
Speaker 2: going on behind the scenes that we got a little
Speaker 2: window in his speech recently. So tell us what kinds
Speaker 2: of cases are you bringing here to protect our democracy
Speaker 2: and our argy?
Speaker 7: Yeah, I think the.
Speaker 5: Main I think, yeah, I think the main thing that's
Speaker 5: really important for people that are tuning in to know
Speaker 5: is that, largely speaking, the president's attempts to engage in
Speaker 5: these conspiracy theories, the president's attempts to intimidate and try
Speaker 5: to get voter rolled, all those things, they are largely
Speaker 5: being blocked in the courts. And that's no surprise because
Speaker 5: the Constitution provides no basis for the president to have
Speaker 5: a role in our elections like that. Just is what
Speaker 5: happened two hundred and fifty years ago. We didn't throw
Speaker 5: off the reigns of monarchy to put a president in
Speaker 5: charge of elections, and that's how you know, you know,
Speaker 5: and that didn't change within the ten years between the
Speaker 5: declaration of independence and when the Constitution comes about. So
Speaker 5: there's no real role for the president here, and the
Speaker 5: federal courts have been pretty uniformly seeing it for what
Speaker 5: it is. So in cases that we are not involved
Speaker 5: in that, I'll start with those first. You know, the
Speaker 5: Department of Justice, I believe is zero for sixteen in
Speaker 5: their attempts to get data from the states. Now we
Speaker 5: have blocked alongside we are counsel at Democracy Forward, alongside
Speaker 5: our friends at CREWE and the Fair Election Center, we
Speaker 5: have blocked the president's attempt to use this modified SAVE
Speaker 5: database within the Department of Homeland Security to aggregate information
Speaker 5: and potentially to use that.
Speaker 7: To remove voters from the roles. We've blocked that by
Speaker 7: a federal court.
Speaker 5: We're fighting literally every day on their complains alliance with
Speaker 5: that court order, but that has also been blocked. We
Speaker 5: have exposed in another federal litigation that when DOGE was
Speaker 5: in Washington, they were accessing individual social security information and
Speaker 5: that a DOGE team members signed a voter data agreement
Speaker 5: with a third party organization that, by the Department of
Speaker 5: Justice's own telling, was engaged in seeking to overturn state
Speaker 5: election results. So we have won a major discovery order
Speaker 5: to get to the bottom of what's happening there. And
Speaker 5: then right after the president's speech, just hours after the
Speaker 5: president's speech, we filed suit because the government has been
Speaker 5: with holding documents from the FBI, the DOJ, and the
Speaker 5: OD and I the very agencies that the President was
Speaker 5: trying to put at play. They've been withholding documents about
Speaker 5: all of these types of conspiracies that of course we
Speaker 5: know the documents will show that these are just conspiracies.
Speaker 5: And so you will see that type of action from US.
Speaker 5: You will see that type of action from other organizations,
Speaker 5: from the state ags. There will be swift legal action
Speaker 5: every time this administration seeks to do something to undermine
Speaker 5: the elections. And it's not going to be easy for
Speaker 5: the president to do this, and our constitution doesn't permit it.
Speaker 5: And I think you saw even the US Supreme Court
Speaker 5: in this last term in the Mississippi decision.
Speaker 7: I think I think it was an.
Speaker 5: Amy Coney Barrett opinion, you know, really explaining that there
Speaker 5: isn't a role for the president in some of these things.
Speaker 5: And so I think that we're feeling, you know, the lawyers.
Speaker 7: Are going to do what we need to do.
Speaker 5: But this is the type of election that every single
Speaker 5: American is going to have to vote, is going to
Speaker 5: have to make a plan to vote, and is going
Speaker 5: to have to sort of make up their minds and
Speaker 5: with their communities that we're not going to stand idly
Speaker 5: by while an administration or any other tripe of force
Speaker 5: tries to undermine our elections. And there really may be
Speaker 5: actions that people in communities need to take in forms
Speaker 5: of peaceful mass mobilizations, education campaigns, helping accompany people of
Speaker 5: the polls. Those are going to be actions that we
Speaker 5: may need to see over the coming weeks and months.
Speaker 5: And at Democracy Forward, we've invested a lot, not just
Speaker 5: in our legal work, but also in helping to support
Speaker 5: communities be able to engage in those peaceful and lawful
Speaker 5: ways to protect our democracy.
Speaker 2: I'm interested in digging into this litigation that followed the speech,
Speaker 2: because you know, I think a lot of people felt
Speaker 2: powerless listening to this thing. It was so outrageous that
Speaker 2: he's making all of these claims, both about the insecurity
Speaker 2: of our elections generally when his party loses, but I
Speaker 2: guess the security when he wins. And you know, it's
Speaker 2: just a sort of mass confusion. And yet you responded
Speaker 2: with a legal strategy and with litigation to try to
Speaker 2: figure out what's really going on here behind the curtain
Speaker 2: that we know just from what we're seeing that there's
Speaker 2: pure chaos and there must be even more malicious activity
Speaker 2: going on behind the scenes. So how are you going
Speaker 2: about trying to get this information? You know, tell us
Speaker 2: more about how this lawsuit, in this litigation will work.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's one of those areas where I was
Speaker 2: especially impressed to see you doing this because I thought, like, well,
Speaker 2: you know, the administration at least claims it's a black box.
Speaker 2: They don't. The whole way that corruption works, you know,
Speaker 2: the Nixon administration earlier is the presidents put veils of
Speaker 2: secrecy around themselves, and of course he's both wanting to
Speaker 2: tell us about the insecurity of our elections and not
Speaker 2: show us any proof of that. And you're really trying
Speaker 2: to pierce that veil of secrecy to get transparency, to
Speaker 2: get the truth. How are you doing that which we've been.
Speaker 7: Able to do.
Speaker 5: I just want to say that through our litigation, we've
Speaker 5: been able to uncover so many things. We've uncovered that
Speaker 5: they were intimidating local communities that thought that they had
Speaker 5: to turn over voted data. So you know, this is
Speaker 5: really important. So the Freedom of Information Act is of
Speaker 5: course an amazing and an important tool for the American people.
Speaker 5: This is information that's in our government is the people's information.
Speaker 5: It's not the information of a particular leader or the
Speaker 5: people that follow that leader. This is the people's information.
Speaker 5: And so we have had a great success in using
Speaker 5: the Freedom of Information Act and the litigation when they
Speaker 5: don't respond and don't give over that data to force
Speaker 5: production of information. That's been very helpful to protect people's
Speaker 5: rights and to expose what is happening our other you know,
Speaker 5: our litigation cases that are not litigation under the Freedom
Speaker 5: of Information Act. You know, the courts have a way
Speaker 5: of shining a light, and so we've been able to
Speaker 5: uncover so much of this through that litigation as well.
Speaker 5: You know, Justice Lewis Brandeis had said, you know, sunlight
Speaker 5: is the best disinfectant. And even in these times where
Speaker 5: it seems that these threats are so accelerated, and this
Speaker 5: country has faced major threats before, but these are very
Speaker 5: accelerated and concerning almost unprecedented threats here, definitely unprecedented to
Speaker 5: have a president that's actively trying to keep people from
Speaker 5: being able to participate in our elections. Exposure has still
Speaker 5: been a key key way that people have been able
Speaker 5: to push back and to stop bad activity, which is
Speaker 5: of course why the administration is seeking to intimidate journalists,
Speaker 5: is seeking to intimidate storytellers, is making outlandish claims that
Speaker 5: you can't record what's happening on the public streets of
Speaker 5: your community. Of course you can, but making these claims
Speaker 5: because they don't want that transparency and exposure. And so
Speaker 5: we are really pleased and honor that we can use
Speaker 5: the tools that the law provides. Is an area of
Speaker 5: law that is still there, that is still providing these
Speaker 5: types of tools.
Speaker 7: And we're going to use them.
Speaker 2: Well, what an amazing conversation this has been. I'm going
Speaker 2: to ask you one last question before we say goodbye.
Speaker 2: I mean, so much of the important work that you're
Speaker 2: doing and finding litigants and actually literally stopping this administration.
Speaker 2: I just want to emphasize that point that you really
Speaker 2: did stop the slush fund in its tracks. And you
Speaker 2: know that's led to the administration claiming that they abandoned
Speaker 2: it while it sounds like they're continuing, but you did
Speaker 2: stop it. This litigation works. You've provided information to us,
Speaker 2: You've helped make this a story that we're all aware of,
Speaker 2: as you said too, and that's been true throughout this
Speaker 2: administration and the Abrego Garcia case. The reason why we're
Speaker 2: all talking about the seventeen ninety eight Alien Enemies Act
Speaker 2: and their attempt to basically revoke due process off this
Speaker 2: ancient litigation is because somebody stood up. There was a
Speaker 2: client who was willing to push back. That's true of
Speaker 2: a break of Garcia. So tell me though, too. I mean,
Speaker 2: just as a part of what we're always talking about
Speaker 2: on this podcast is of course the threat to democracy,
Speaker 2: but also the future. I mean, this is there legislation.
Speaker 2: What would you like to see going forward for us
Speaker 2: not just to get Donald Trump out of office, but
Speaker 2: to see our democracy restored. I'll just invite you to
Speaker 2: speak more generally about what we were Yeah, I.
Speaker 5: Mean, I love this question, and I have to say
Speaker 5: that we know that it's not just about the restoration
Speaker 5: of democracy, It's really about the reimagining of democracy. Our
Speaker 5: country is an amazing country and the ideals it was
Speaker 5: founded on the way in which it was founded. For
Speaker 5: all of the setbacks and all of the injustices. It
Speaker 5: was the first country in the world that was founded
Speaker 5: on common ideals as opposed to historical accident or necessity
Speaker 5: or survival. But from the beginning of that founding, of
Speaker 5: course worse the promises and the practices didn't match up.
Speaker 5: The country was founded on stolen land. It was founded
Speaker 5: and you know, in the midst of human enslavement and
Speaker 5: in the disenfranchising of the vast majority of people that
Speaker 5: lived within the country's claimed borders, whether they were women,
Speaker 5: people of color, non property owners, couldn't vote. And so
Speaker 5: this is a moment where we have to be honest
Speaker 5: about that history. For all it's good and all it's bad,
Speaker 5: and I just listed a lot of the bad pieces
Speaker 5: of our history, and we have to be honest that
Speaker 5: it has been ordinary people across this country that have
Speaker 5: pushed to make promises actually practices, that have pushed to
Speaker 5: really realize a democracy that is made to hold all
Speaker 5: of us. And this is an amazing moment where as
Speaker 5: people are seeing what is at stake, and as powerful
Speaker 5: institutions have been pulling back, people have been stepping forward.
Speaker 7: And so what we want to see.
Speaker 5: Is our systems and structures really be set up to
Speaker 5: hold all of us. That means that we need to
Speaker 5: talk seriously about Supreme Court reform. It means that we
Speaker 5: need to look at things like the electoral college, or
Speaker 5: the filibuster, or a number of things that exists within
Speaker 5: our representative system that was here to try to restrict
Speaker 5: democracy as opposed to empower democracy. And then on a
Speaker 5: more granular level, there's a lot of work that needs
Speaker 5: to be done to make sure that when people dedicate
Speaker 5: their lives to serving our country as career civil servants,
Speaker 5: that there are protections for them so that they don't
Speaker 5: get treated the way our civil servants have been treated now,
Speaker 5: and so that a leader can't come in and just
Speaker 5: like eradicate the professional civil service and replace them with
Speaker 5: partisan loyalists. We need to make sure that there's more
Speaker 5: comprehensive anti corruption laws, because this country was not really
Speaker 5: did not really contemplate that the government itself would have
Speaker 5: widespread corruption. And so, as you know, our laws are
Speaker 5: set up for the government to want to root out
Speaker 5: individual instances of corruption within the government, set up for
Speaker 5: the government itself to be broadly and widely corrupt, and
Speaker 5: we now have a lot of challenges as a result
Speaker 5: of the deep corruption that we're seeing. So we're deeply
Speaker 5: hopeful about what people are doing in this moment. I
Speaker 5: think we think that it's a really hard moment and
Speaker 5: it may get worse before it gets better, but we
Speaker 5: are also deeply hopeful about what this crisis can do
Speaker 5: to catalyze real change, not just performative change, but real
Speaker 5: change that truly helps to bring about a democracy that
Speaker 5: we've never had in this country, but that so many
Speaker 5: people across so many generations have been working to achieve.
Speaker 2: What a great place to end. Absolutely in times of crisis,
Speaker 2: that's where we often find the moment to not just
Speaker 2: push back against the president causing the crisis, but to
Speaker 2: rebuild our democracy. And like you, I'm hopeful that we'll
Speaker 2: do that at this moment and in the future, and
Speaker 2: that we won't just stop Donald Trump, but that will
Speaker 2: do much more. But of course, thank you too for
Speaker 2: your work in stopping Donald Trump and the Lush fun
Speaker 2: case and so many other pieces of litigation that you
Speaker 2: and your amazing group Democracy Forward have been involved with.
Speaker 2: Sky Perryman, thanks for joining the pleasure.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much outstating work, Professor. Thank you very
Speaker 1: much for that.
Speaker 2: You know It really is a pleasure to do this
Speaker 2: show with you, John every week, because we're documenting what's happening,
Speaker 2: we're being honest about it, about the brutality of ice,
Speaker 2: about an attorney general who thinks he's the personal criminal
Speaker 2: lawyer of the president, of a speech that was meant
Speaker 2: to indict the insecurity of our elections, but really revealed
Speaker 2: the president's own motivation to try to steal our elections.
Speaker 2: And then to combine it with the chance on this
Speaker 2: show to speak to, you know, somebody who maybe listeners
Speaker 2: have heard on MS now or on your show, John,
Speaker 2: but some of them, and many of them will be
Speaker 2: introduced for the first time, who's actually leading a really massive, powerful,
Speaker 2: brilliant organization with some of the best lawyers out their
Speaker 2: former Department of Justice officials. As I mentioned, I had
Speaker 2: the chance to work with Sky Perryman's team on the
Speaker 2: Terrorist Brief, which I'll add was an instance where where
Speaker 2: litigation stopped the president from acting like a dictator. And so,
Speaker 2: you know, on the one hand, it's a frightening moment,
Speaker 2: but I'm so glad that we got to have that
Speaker 2: discussion with Sky Perryman and to talk about democracy forward
Speaker 2: and you know, we'll keep going and next week we'll
Speaker 2: have David French on the show. An amazing conversation there,
Speaker 2: so what a pleasure. John. Thanks, thanks, thank you everyone
Speaker 2: for listening, and thanks for making this, by the way,
Speaker 2: not just a top podcast, but the number one trending
Speaker 2: podcast on Apple Government. And if you haven't subscribed, definitely
Speaker 2: subscribe and tell your friends about the show.
Speaker 1: I want to thank Wendy and Beyo Wolf and everyone
Speaker 1: who puts the show together, and thank you Professor. As always,
Speaker 1: I'm John Fegele Sang. We will see you next time
Speaker 1: on the open of the office.